post_task

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, and it delivers well. It explains the created row's initial status ('posted'), the webhook notification (`task.posted`), the heartbeat lease mechanism with `RELAY_TASK_LEASE_SECONDS`, the health monitor surfacing stuck tasks, auth requirements (requester token; `to` must be registered), and the return envelope. This is rich behavioral context, though it omits details like idempotency or whether re-posting to the same agent is allowed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with bolded section labels (When to use, Behavior, Auth, Returns, Errors) making it highly scannable. Every sentence earns its place — lifecycle, webhook, heartbeat, auth, return shape, and errors are each covered in one compact paragraph. No redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It documents the full behavioral lifecycle (post→accept→complete/reject/cancel), the return envelope shape, error codes, auth model, and adjacent tools. Given the tool's moderate complexity, nothing critical is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining behavioral meaning of parameters beyond schema types: `to` must be a 'registered agent', `priority` maps into the returned status/task, and `schema_id` is contextualized via 'v2.10' note and 'schema-gated completion' semantics. However, most parameter details (max lengths, defaults) remain in the schema, so the incremental semantic addition is moderate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Assign a tracked task to a specific agent.' It clearly distinguishes from `post_task_auto` (auto-pickup) and `send_message` (free-text) by name. The task lifecycle (accept/complete/reject/cancel) is explicitly documented, making the tool's purpose unambiguous against 30+ sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'When to use' section explicitly states when to use this tool (work needing accept→complete/reject state machine with single owner) and when NOT to use it, naming concrete alternatives: `post_task_auto` for anyone-capable pickup and `send_message` for free-text comms. It also documents the assignee/assigner interaction flow via `update_task`, giving clear usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.